I've also seen the Mail take an increasingly harder line on May recently,it won't take many more of these kind of articles to embolden enough MPs totake her down and trigger a leadership election, which'll almost certainlyprecipitate a general election and, most likely, a Corbyn government! Atwhich point Labour can perfectly justifiably say that the Tories have madesuch a bollocks of negotiations that there is no choice but to revokeArticle 50 and look at the whole thing again, kicking the Brexit can downthe road until enough old racists are in the ground to guarantee a secondreferendum would have no chance of ending up Leave. Woo!

Post by Stephen Thomas ColeYou know things are bad for a Conservative government when even the fuckinghttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/seen-enough-know-theresa-may-cant-change-must-go/I've also seen the Mail take an increasingly harder line on May recently,it won't take many more of these kind of articles to embolden enough MPs totake her down and trigger a leadership election, which'll almost certainlyprecipitate a general election and, most likely, a Corbyn government! Atwhich point Labour can perfectly justifiably say that the Tories have madesuch a bollocks of negotiations that there is no choice but to revokeArticle 50 and look at the whole thing again, kicking the Brexit can downthe road until enough old racists are in the ground to guarantee a secondreferendum would have no chance of ending up Leave. Woo!

Still dreaming I see Steve.

May's incompetence is nothing new, she has made a hash of everything shehas touched. The Tories just don't have the gumption to ditch her andthose like her.

Labour is no better- Corbyn is a joke, if he was given the elbow who isgoing to step in? His left wing side kick? Diane Abbott?

The bottom line is, none of traditional parties have a serious contender.

As for Brexit, every doom and gloom prediction of your Remain chums hasfallen apart. Even the French are taking about a 'special deal' postBrexit.

If you want to be part of the EU, move countries.

BTW, you do know that it hasn't been established Art. 50 can bereversed. The Supreme Court view is it is not possible and decided acase on that basis.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39291512

Yes, there is a lot of hot air from Remainers in that article but thekey part is the bit re the Supreme Court.

--Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? IncapacityBenefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? Theyare depriving those in real need!

Post by Stephen Thomas ColeYou know things are bad for a Conservative government when even the fuckinghttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/seen-enough-know-theresa-may-cant-change-must-go/I've also seen the Mail take an increasingly harder line on May recently,it won't take many more of these kind of articles to embolden enough MPs totake her down and trigger a leadership election, which'll almost certainlyprecipitate a general election and, most likely, a Corbyn government! Atwhich point Labour can perfectly justifiably say that the Tories have madesuch a bollocks of negotiations that there is no choice but to revokeArticle 50 and look at the whole thing again, kicking the Brexit can downthe road until enough old racists are in the ground to guarantee a secondreferendum would have no chance of ending up Leave. Woo!

Still dreaming I see Steve.

Just reporting the facts, OM!

Post by Brian ReayMay's incompetence is nothing new, she has made a hash of everything shehas touched. The Tories just don't have the gumption to ditch her andthose like her.Labour is no better- Corbyn is a joke, if he was given the elbow who isgoing to step in? His left wing side kick? Diane Abbott?The bottom line is, none of traditional parties have a serious contender.

Emily Thornberry is very credible, although Laura Pidcock is looking likelyto steal her thunder. In a leadership contest between those two, I'd votePidcock, she's proper Left.

Post by Brian ReayAs for Brexit, every doom and gloom prediction of your Remain chums hasfallen apart. Even the French are taking about a 'special deal' postBrexit.

By which they mean a negotiated settlement on a trade deal, the same"special" deal that every Third Country gets.

Why didn't you "move countries" at any point in the last four decades whenyou didn't want to be part of the EU?

Post by Brian ReayBTW, you do know that it hasn't been established Art. 50 can bereversed. The Supreme Court view is it is not possible and decided acase on that basis.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39291512Yes, there is a lot of hot air from Remainers in that article but thekey part is the bit re the Supreme Court.

Brian, you really need to keep yourself up to speed on this matter, thiskind of easily-avoided clanger above just makes you look uninformed andcatastrophically weakens your arguments:

Post by Stephen Thomas ColeYou know things are bad for a Conservative government when even the fuckinghttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/seen-enough-know-theresa-may-cant-change-must-go/I've also seen the Mail take an increasingly harder line on May recently,it won't take many more of these kind of articles to embolden enough MPs totake her down and trigger a leadership election, which'll almost certainlyprecipitate a general election and, most likely, a Corbyn government! Atwhich point Labour can perfectly justifiably say that the Tories have madesuch a bollocks of negotiations that there is no choice but to revokeArticle 50 and look at the whole thing again, kicking the Brexit can downthe road until enough old racists are in the ground to guarantee a secondreferendum would have no chance of ending up Leave. Woo!

Still dreaming I see Steve.May's incompetence is nothing new, she has made a hash of everythingshe has touched. The Tories just don't have the gumption to ditch herand those like her.Labour is no better- Corbyn is a joke, if he was given the elbow who isgoing to step in? His left wing side kick? Diane Abbott?The bottom line is, none of traditional parties have a serious contender.As for Brexit, every doom and gloom prediction of your Remain chums hasfallen apart. Even the French are taking about a 'special deal' postBrexit.If you want to be part of the EU, move countries.BTW, you do know that it hasn't been established Art. 50 can bereversed. The Supreme Court view is it is not possible and decided acase on that basis.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39291512Yes, there is a lot of hot air from Remainers in that article but thekey part is the bit re the Supreme Court.

Please don't start overtly discussing Brexit here. There are enoughnutters 'discussing' it in uk.legal and uk.politics.misc withouttempting them to join the nutters already in uk.r.a.

Post by Stephen Thomas ColeYou know things are bad for a Conservative government when even the fuckinghttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/seen-enough-know-theresa-may-cant-change-must-go/I've also seen the Mail take an increasingly harder line on May recently,it won't take many more of these kind of articles to embolden enough MPs totake her down and trigger a leadership election, which'll almost certainlyprecipitate a general election and, most likely, a Corbyn government! Atwhich point Labour can perfectly justifiably say that the Tories have madesuch a bollocks of negotiations that there is no choice but to revokeArticle 50 and look at the whole thing again, kicking the Brexit can downthe road until enough old racists are in the ground to guarantee a secondreferendum would have no chance of ending up Leave. Woo!

Still dreaming I see Steve.May's incompetence is nothing new, she has made a hash of everything shehas touched. The Tories just don't have the gumption to ditch her andthose like her.Labour is no better- Corbyn is a joke, if he was given the elbow who isgoing to step in? His left wing side kick? Diane Abbott?The bottom line is, none of traditional parties have a serious contender.As for Brexit, every doom and gloom prediction of your Remain chums hasfallen apart. Even the French are taking about a 'special deal' postBrexit.If you want to be part of the EU, move countries.BTW, you do know that it hasn't been established Art. 50 can bereversed. The Supreme Court view is it is not possible and decided acase on that basis.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39291512Yes, there is a lot of hot air from Remainers in that article but thekey part is the bit re the Supreme Court.

This is all a bit off-topic but, in the interests of truth, that articlesays the Supreme Court has *not* ruled on the matter because it has notbeen asked to. It made a ruling in which both parties argued that itwas not reversible; but the oourt merely accepted the idea for thepurposes of that case, as they are wont to do if neither party disputesa legal position and it is at all credible, while explicity saying theywere not making a ruling on the reversibility of Article 50.

I have no opinion on the legal question myself, but we could always askto rejoin!

Post by Stephen Thomas ColeYou know things are bad for a Conservative government when even the fuckinghttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/seen-enough-know-theresa-may-cant-change-must-go/I've also seen the Mail take an increasingly harder line on May recently,it won't take many more of these kind of articles to embolden enough MPs totake her down and trigger a leadership election, which'll almost certainlyprecipitate a general election and, most likely, a Corbyn government! Atwhich point Labour can perfectly justifiably say that the Tories have madesuch a bollocks of negotiations that there is no choice but to revokeArticle 50 and look at the whole thing again, kicking the Brexit can downthe road until enough old racists are in the ground to guarantee a secondreferendum would have no chance of ending up Leave. Woo!

Still dreaming I see Steve.May's incompetence is nothing new, she has made a hash of everything shehas touched. The Tories just don't have the gumption to ditch her andthose like her.Labour is no better- Corbyn is a joke, if he was given the elbow who isgoing to step in? His left wing side kick? Diane Abbott?The bottom line is, none of traditional parties have a serious contender.As for Brexit, every doom and gloom prediction of your Remain chums hasfallen apart. Even the French are taking about a 'special deal' postBrexit.If you want to be part of the EU, move countries.BTW, you do know that it hasn't been established Art. 50 can bereversed. The Supreme Court view is it is not possible and decided acase on that basis.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39291512Yes, there is a lot of hot air from Remainers in that article but thekey part is the bit re the Supreme Court.

This is all a bit off-topic but, in the interests of truth, that articlesays the Supreme Court has *not* ruled on the matter because it has notbeen asked to. It made a ruling in which both parties argued that itwas not reversible; but the oourt merely accepted the idea for thepurposes of that case, as they are wont to do if neither party disputesa legal position and it is at all credible, while explicity saying theywere not making a ruling on the reversibility of Article 50.I have no opinion on the legal question myself, but we could always askto rejoin!

Roger, did I say the Supreme Court had ruled on the matter? Read what Iposted- not what you think I posted. That is how Jim went off on hisMerc fantasy, and you and chums end up making false claims.

Post by Roger HayterThis is all a bit off-topic but, in the interests of truth, that articlesays the Supreme Court has *not* ruled on the matter because it has notbeen asked to. It made a ruling in which both parties argued that itwas not reversible; but the oourt merely accepted the idea for thepurposes of that case, as they are wont to do if neither party disputesa legal position and it is at all credible, while explicity saying theywere not making a ruling on the reversibility of Article 50.I have no opinion on the legal question myself, but we could always askto rejoin!

Roger, did I say the Supreme Court had ruled on the matter? Read what Iposted- not what you think I posted. That is how Jim went off on hisMerc fantasy, and you and chums end up making false claims.

You said: "The Supreme Court view is it is not possible" which isuntrue, the Supreme Court does not have a view, as the Court explicitlystated it did not have one.

Youd said: "the key part is the bit re the Supreme Court." which isuntrue as the Supreme Court has taken no position.

You may not have used the word "ruling" and indeed you may have thoughtthe Supreme Court made an obiter dictum on the matter. It didn't, itmerely decided a case on the basis agreed by the parties withoutadopting their view of the law. This is no different from any casebeing decided on the issue that divides the parties with no ruling onparts of the case that the parties have decided not to dispute.

Post by Roger HayterThis is all a bit off-topic but, in the interests of truth, that articlesays the Supreme Court has *not* ruled on the matter because it has notbeen asked to. It made a ruling in which both parties argued that itwas not reversible; but the oourt merely accepted the idea for thepurposes of that case, as they are wont to do if neither party disputesa legal position and it is at all credible, while explicity saying theywere not making a ruling on the reversibility of Article 50.I have no opinion on the legal question myself, but we could always askto rejoin!

Roger, did I say the Supreme Court had ruled on the matter? Read what Iposted- not what you think I posted. That is how Jim went off on hisMerc fantasy, and you and chums end up making false claims.

You said: "The Supreme Court view is it is not possible" which isuntrue, the Supreme Court does not have a view, as the Court explicitlystated it did not have one.Youd said: "the key part is the bit re the Supreme Court." which isuntrue as the Supreme Court has taken no position.You may not have used the word "ruling" and indeed you may have thoughtthe Supreme Court made an obiter dictum on the matter. It didn't, itmerely decided a case on the basis agreed by the parties withoutadopting their view of the law. This is no different from any casebeing decided on the issue that divides the parties with no ruling onparts of the case that the parties have decided not to dispute.

Post by Roger HayterThis is all a bit off-topic but, in the interests of truth, that articlesays the Supreme Court has *not* ruled on the matter because it has notbeen asked to. It made a ruling in which both parties argued that itwas not reversible; but the oourt merely accepted the idea for thepurposes of that case, as they are wont to do if neither party disputesa legal position and it is at all credible, while explicity saying theywere not making a ruling on the reversibility of Article 50.I have no opinion on the legal question myself, but we could always askto rejoin!

Roger, did I say the Supreme Court had ruled on the matter? Read what Iposted- not what you think I posted. That is how Jim went off on hisMerc fantasy, and you and chums end up making false claims.

You said: "The Supreme Court view is it is not possible" which isuntrue, the Supreme Court does not have a view, as the Court explicitlystated it did not have one.Youd said: "the key part is the bit re the Supreme Court." which isuntrue as the Supreme Court has taken no position.You may not have used the word "ruling" and indeed you may have thoughtthe Supreme Court made an obiter dictum on the matter. It didn't, itmerely decided a case on the basis agreed by the parties withoutadopting their view of the law. This is no different from any casebeing decided on the issue that divides the parties with no ruling onparts of the case that the parties have decided not to dispute.Try wriggling out of that!

Post by Roger HayterThis is all a bit off-topic but, in the interests of truth, that articlesays the Supreme Court has *not* ruled on the matter because it has notbeen asked to. It made a ruling in which both parties argued that itwas not reversible; but the oourt merely accepted the idea for thepurposes of that case, as they are wont to do if neither party disputesa legal position and it is at all credible, while explicity saying theywere not making a ruling on the reversibility of Article 50.I have no opinion on the legal question myself, but we could always askto rejoin!

Roger, did I say the Supreme Court had ruled on the matter? Read what Iposted- not what you think I posted. That is how Jim went off on hisMerc fantasy, and you and chums end up making false claims.

You said: "The Supreme Court view is it is not possible" which isuntrue, the Supreme Court does not have a view, as the Court explicitlystated it did not have one.Youd said: "the key part is the bit re the Supreme Court." which isuntrue as the Supreme Court has taken no position.You may not have used the word "ruling" and indeed you may have thoughtthe Supreme Court made an obiter dictum on the matter. It didn't, itmerely decided a case on the basis agreed by the parties withoutadopting their view of the law. This is no different from any casebeing decided on the issue that divides the parties with no ruling onparts of the case that the parties have decided not to dispute.Try wriggling out of that!

You seem to be the one trying to wriggle, after you made a false claim.

Like your fellow usual rejects, you jumped in with both feet having notchecked what I'd posted.

Post by Roger HayterThis is all a bit off-topic but, in the interests of truth, that articlesays the Supreme Court has *not* ruled on the matter because it has notbeen asked to. It made a ruling in which both parties argued that itwas not reversible; but the oourt merely accepted the idea for thepurposes of that case, as they are wont to do if neither party disputesa legal position and it is at all credible, while explicity saying theywere not making a ruling on the reversibility of Article 50.I have no opinion on the legal question myself, but we could always askto rejoin!

Roger, did I say the Supreme Court had ruled on the matter? Read what Iposted- not what you think I posted. That is how Jim went off on hisMerc fantasy, and you and chums end up making false claims.

You said: "The Supreme Court view is it is not possible" which isuntrue, the Supreme Court does not have a view, as the Court explicitlystated it did not have one.Youd said: "the key part is the bit re the Supreme Court." which isuntrue as the Supreme Court has taken no position.You may not have used the word "ruling" and indeed you may have thoughtthe Supreme Court made an obiter dictum on the matter. It didn't, itmerely decided a case on the basis agreed by the parties withoutadopting their view of the law. This is no different from any casebeing decided on the issue that divides the parties with no ruling onparts of the case that the parties have decided not to dispute.Try wriggling out of that!

You seem to be the one trying to wriggle, after you made a false claim.Like your fellow usual rejects, you jumped in with both feet having notchecked what I'd posted.

Post by Roger HayterThis is all a bit off-topic but, in the interests of truth, that articlesays the Supreme Court has *not* ruled on the matter because it has notbeen asked to. It made a ruling in which both parties argued that itwas not reversible; but the oourt merely accepted the idea for thepurposes of that case, as they are wont to do if neither party disputesa legal position and it is at all credible, while explicity saying theywere not making a ruling on the reversibility of Article 50.I have no opinion on the legal question myself, but we could always askto rejoin!

Roger, did I say the Supreme Court had ruled on the matter? Read what Iposted- not what you think I posted. That is how Jim went off on hisMerc fantasy, and you and chums end up making false claims.

You said: "The Supreme Court view is it is not possible" which isuntrue, the Supreme Court does not have a view, as the Court explicitlystated it did not have one.Youd said: "the key part is the bit re the Supreme Court." which isuntrue as the Supreme Court has taken no position.You may not have used the word "ruling" and indeed you may have thoughtthe Supreme Court made an obiter dictum on the matter. It didn't, itmerely decided a case on the basis agreed by the parties withoutadopting their view of the law. This is no different from any casebeing decided on the issue that divides the parties with no ruling onparts of the case that the parties have decided not to dispute.Try wriggling out of that!

You seem to be the one trying to wriggle, after you made a false claim.Like your fellow usual rejects, you jumped in with both feet having notchecked what I'd posted.

I said that the Supreme Court had not ruled on the matter. What isfalse about that? Are you imagining some claim I might have made aboutyou? I can't see one. You seem to have gone off on a fantasy aboutwhat I might have said, not what I did say.

Post by Roger HayterThis is all a bit off-topic but, in the interests of truth, that articlesays the Supreme Court has *not* ruled on the matter because it has notbeen asked to. It made a ruling in which both parties argued that itwas not reversible; but the oourt merely accepted the idea for thepurposes of that case, as they are wont to do if neither party disputesa legal position and it is at all credible, while explicity saying theywere not making a ruling on the reversibility of Article 50.I have no opinion on the legal question myself, but we could always askto rejoin!

Roger, did I say the Supreme Court had ruled on the matter? Read what Iposted- not what you think I posted. That is how Jim went off on hisMerc fantasy, and you and chums end up making false claims.

You said: "The Supreme Court view is it is not possible" which isuntrue, the Supreme Court does not have a view, as the Court explicitlystated it did not have one.Youd said: "the key part is the bit re the Supreme Court." which isuntrue as the Supreme Court has taken no position.You may not have used the word "ruling" and indeed you may have thoughtthe Supreme Court made an obiter dictum on the matter. It didn't, itmerely decided a case on the basis agreed by the parties withoutadopting their view of the law. This is no different from any casebeing decided on the issue that divides the parties with no ruling onparts of the case that the parties have decided not to dispute.Try wriggling out of that!

You seem to be the one trying to wriggle, after you made a false claim.Like your fellow usual rejects, you jumped in with both feet having notchecked what I'd posted.

I said that the Supreme Court had not ruled on the matter. What isfalse about that? Are you imagining some claim I might have made aboutyou? I can't see one. You seem to have gone off on a fantasy aboutwhat I might have said, not what I did say.

Post by Roger HayterThis is all a bit off-topic but, in the interests of truth, that articlesays the Supreme Court has *not* ruled on the matter because it has notbeen asked to. It made a ruling in which both parties argued that itwas not reversible; but the oourt merely accepted the idea for thepurposes of that case, as they are wont to do if neither party disputesa legal position and it is at all credible, while explicity saying theywere not making a ruling on the reversibility of Article 50.I have no opinion on the legal question myself, but we could always askto rejoin!

Roger, did I say the Supreme Court had ruled on the matter? Read what Iposted- not what you think I posted. That is how Jim went off on hisMerc fantasy, and you and chums end up making false claims.

You said: "The Supreme Court view is it is not possible" which isuntrue, the Supreme Court does not have a view, as the Court explicitlystated it did not have one.Youd said: "the key part is the bit re the Supreme Court." which isuntrue as the Supreme Court has taken no position.You may not have used the word "ruling" and indeed you may have thoughtthe Supreme Court made an obiter dictum on the matter. It didn't, itmerely decided a case on the basis agreed by the parties withoutadopting their view of the law. This is no different from any casebeing decided on the issue that divides the parties with no ruling onparts of the case that the parties have decided not to dispute.Try wriggling out of that!

You seem to be the one trying to wriggle, after you made a false claim.Like your fellow usual rejects, you jumped in with both feet having notchecked what I'd posted.

I said that the Supreme Court had not ruled on the matter. What isfalse about that? Are you imagining some claim I might have made aboutyou? I can't see one. You seem to have gone off on a fantasy aboutwhat I might have said, not what I did say.

You are wriggling.

Not at all! The bottom line is that you tried to correct Steve byclaiming that the Supreme Court had thrown doubt on the reversibility ofArticle 50. It hasn't.

Didn't you once maintain that errors such as made above implies 'mentaldeterioration?

--Spike

"Once you see the RSGB logo you know that you are on the right track"But to what? Publish RSGBTech/RSGBTechnical's definitions of'genuine', 'interest', 'known', 'trouble', and 'maker', and the vettingpolicy.

Post by Stephen Thomas ColeYou know things are bad for a Conservative government when even the fuckinghttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/seen-enough-know-theresa-may-cant-change-must-go/I've also seen the Mail take an increasingly harder line on May recently,it won't take many more of these kind of articles to embolden enough MPs totake her down and trigger a leadership election, which'll almost certainlyprecipitate a general election and, most likely, a Corbyn government! Atwhich point Labour can perfectly justifiably say that the Tories have madesuch a bollocks of negotiations that there is no choice but to revokeArticle 50 and look at the whole thing again, kicking the Brexit can downthe road until enough old racists are in the ground to guarantee a secondreferendum would have no chance of ending up Leave. Woo!

The flaw in the argument that the old people are dying off, is they arereplaced by other older people. One becomes more conservative and lessradical with age.

The same sort of argument has been applied to the Scottish Referendum,where the old people did much to swing the vote.

Incidentally I voted to join the EEC way back, I also voted to Remainand Yes. Maybe I'm not a typical old bloke.

Post by Stephen Thomas ColeYou know things are bad for a Conservative government when even the fuckinghttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/seen-enough-know-theresa-may-cant-change-must-go/I've also seen the Mail take an increasingly harder line on May recently,it won't take many more of these kind of articles to embolden enough MPs totake her down and trigger a leadership election, which'll almost certainlyprecipitate a general election and, most likely, a Corbyn government! Atwhich point Labour can perfectly justifiably say that the Tories have madesuch a bollocks of negotiations that there is no choice but to revokeArticle 50 and look at the whole thing again, kicking the Brexit can downthe road until enough old racists are in the ground to guarantee a secondreferendum would have no chance of ending up Leave. Woo!

The flaw in the argument that the old people are dying off, is they arereplaced by other older people. One becomes more conservative and lessradical with age.

It isn't just age. Those who think the left offer an 'easy solution'tend to be those who haven't worked and actually achieved much. Thereare the 'Claret Lefties' but they tend be 'less equal' than those theyclaim to represent.

Post by Stephen Thomas ColeYou know things are bad for a Conservative government when even the fuckinghttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/seen-enough-know-theresa-may-cant-change-must-go/I've also seen the Mail take an increasingly harder line on May recently,it won't take many more of these kind of articles to embolden enough MPs totake her down and trigger a leadership election, which'll almost certainlyprecipitate a general election and, most likely, a Corbyn government! Atwhich point Labour can perfectly justifiably say that the Tories have madesuch a bollocks of negotiations that there is no choice but to revokeArticle 50 and look at the whole thing again, kicking the Brexit can downthe road until enough old racists are in the ground to guarantee a secondreferendum would have no chance of ending up Leave. Woo!

The flaw in the argument that the old people are dying off, is they arereplaced by other older people. One becomes more conservative and lessradical with age.

It isn't just age. Those who think the left offer an 'easy solution'tend to be those who haven't worked and actually achieved much. Thereare the 'Claret Lefties' but they tend be 'less equal' than those theyclaim to represent.

So the 3 million plus members of the 14 trades unions affiliatedto the Labour Party aren't actually workers then?

Post by Stephen Thomas ColeYou know things are bad for a Conservative government when even the fuckinghttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/seen-enough-know-theresa-may-cant-change-must-go/I've also seen the Mail take an increasingly harder line on May recently,it won't take many more of these kind of articles to embolden enough MPs totake her down and trigger a leadership election, which'll almost certainlyprecipitate a general election and, most likely, a Corbyn government! Atwhich point Labour can perfectly justifiably say that the Tories have madesuch a bollocks of negotiations that there is no choice but to revokeArticle 50 and look at the whole thing again, kicking the Brexit can downthe road until enough old racists are in the ground to guarantee a secondreferendum would have no chance of ending up Leave. Woo!

The flaw in the argument that the old people are dying off, is they arereplaced by other older people. One becomes more conservative and lessradical with age.The same sort of argument has been applied to the Scottish Referendum,where the old people did much to swing the vote.Incidentally I voted to join the EEC way back, I also voted to Remainand Yes. Maybe I'm not a typical old bloke.

Thing is, that's probably not happening any more. The "tipping point" age,where folk go more likely to vote Tory than Labour, is rising steadily.Tories are dying much faster than they're being replaced by new Tories, andBrexiteers are dying out even faster than that!

Post by Stephen Thomas ColeYou know things are bad for a Conservative government when even the fuckinghttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/seen-enough-know-theresa-may-cant-change-must-go/I've also seen the Mail take an increasingly harder line on May recently,it won't take many more of these kind of articles to embolden enough MPs totake her down and trigger a leadership election, which'll almost certainlyprecipitate a general election and, most likely, a Corbyn government! Atwhich point Labour can perfectly justifiably say that the Tories have madesuch a bollocks of negotiations that there is no choice but to revokeArticle 50 and look at the whole thing again, kicking the Brexit can downthe road until enough old racists are in the ground to guarantee a secondreferendum would have no chance of ending up Leave. Woo!

The flaw in the argument that the old people are dying off, is they arereplaced by other older people. One becomes more conservative and lessradical with age.The same sort of argument has been applied to the Scottish Referendum,where the old people did much to swing the vote.Incidentally I voted to join the EEC way back, I also voted to Remainand Yes. Maybe I'm not a typical old bloke.

Thing is, that's probably not happening any more. The "tipping point" age,where folk go more likely to vote Tory than Labour, is rising steadily.Tories are dying much faster than they're being replaced by new Tories, andBrexiteers are dying out even faster than that!

Don't forget that the Tories have, since 2011, managed to reverse the100 year secular trend of increasing life expectancy in this country.[1]So even if people do become Tory voters in their dotage there won't beso many of them around.

Post by Stephen Thomas ColeYou know things are bad for a Conservative government when even the fuckinghttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/seen-enough-know-theresa-may-cant-change-must-go/I've also seen the Mail take an increasingly harder line on May recently,it won't take many more of these kind of articles to embolden enough MPs totake her down and trigger a leadership election, which'll almost certainlyprecipitate a general election and, most likely, a Corbyn government! Atwhich point Labour can perfectly justifiably say that the Tories have madesuch a bollocks of negotiations that there is no choice but to revokeArticle 50 and look at the whole thing again, kicking the Brexit can downthe road until enough old racists are in the ground to guarantee a secondreferendum would have no chance of ending up Leave. Woo!

The flaw in the argument that the old people are dying off, is they arereplaced by other older people. One becomes more conservative and lessradical with age.The same sort of argument has been applied to the Scottish Referendum,where the old people did much to swing the vote.Incidentally I voted to join the EEC way back, I also voted to Remainand Yes. Maybe I'm not a typical old bloke.

Thing is, that's probably not happening any more. The "tipping point" age,where folk go more likely to vote Tory than Labour, is rising steadily.Tories are dying much faster than they're being replaced by new Tories, andBrexiteers are dying out even faster than that!

Don't forget that the Tories have, since 2011, managed to reverse the100 year secular trend of increasing life expectancy in this country.[1]So even if people do become Tory voters in their dotage there won't beso many of them around.[1] https://www.ft.com/content/78146114-15f5-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c

Post by Roger HayterDon't forget that the Tories have, since 2011, managed to reverse the100 year secular trend of increasing life expectancy in this country.[1]So even if people do become Tory voters in their dotage there won't beso many of them around.[1] https://www.ft.com/content/78146114-15f5-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c

not paying for that .....

I got to it from Google and didn't have to pay. Try "life expectancytrends uk", but the fall hasn't filtered through to government docs yet.I wonder why? The FT link is on the first page of the search for me.

Post by Roger HayterDon't forget that the Tories have, since 2011, managed to reverse the100 year secular trend of increasing life expectancy in this country.[1]So even if people do become Tory voters in their dotage there won't beso many of them around.[1]https://www.ft.com/content/78146114-15f5-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c

Just to be clear here, which of these are you claiming?

[1] Including all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage oftime are the only two factors that need to be taken into account whenassessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.

[2] Excluding all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage oftime are the only two factors that need to be taken into account whenassessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.

[3] Some other factors or issues may have exerted an influence resultingin the allegation, but they won't, or can't, be mentioned.

--Spike

"Once you see the RSGB logo you know that you are on the right track"But to what? Publish RSGBTech/RSGBTechnical's definitions of'genuine', 'interest', 'known', 'trouble', and 'maker', and the vettingpolicy.

Post by Roger HayterDon't forget that the Tories have, since 2011, managed to reverse the100 year secular trend of increasing life expectancy in this country.[1]So even if people do become Tory voters in their dotage there won't beso many of them around.[1]https://www.ft.com/content/78146114-15f5-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c

Just to be clear here, which of these are you claiming?[1] Including all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage oftime are the only two factors that need to be taken into account whenassessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.[2] Excluding all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage oftime are the only two factors that need to be taken into account whenassessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.[3] Some other factors or issues may have exerted an influence resultingin the allegation, but they won't, or can't, be mentioned.

Post by Roger HayterDon't forget that the Tories have, since 2011, managed to reverse the100 year secular trend of increasing life expectancy in this country.[1]So even if people do become Tory voters in their dotage there won't beso many of them around.[1]https://www.ft.com/content/78146114-15f5-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c

Just to be clear here, which of these are you claiming?[1] Including all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage oftime are the only two factors that need to be taken into account whenassessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.[2] Excluding all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage oftime are the only two factors that need to be taken into account whenassessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.[3] Some other factors or issues may have exerted an influence resultingin the allegation, but they won't, or can't, be mentioned.

By their fruits shall ye know them.

That response would imply [3], because of other factors/issues that thePC brigade won't mention.

--Spike

"Once you see the RSGB logo you know that you are on the right track"But to what? Publish RSGBTech/RSGBTechnical's definitions of'genuine', 'interest', 'known', 'trouble', and 'maker', and the vettingpolicy.

Post by Roger HayterDon't forget that the Tories have, since 2011, managed to reverse the100 year secular trend of increasing life expectancy in this country.[1]So even if people do become Tory voters in their dotage there won't beso many of them around.[1]https://www.ft.com/content/78146114-15f5-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c

Just to be clear here, which of these are you claiming?[1] Including all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage oftime are the only two factors that need to be taken into account whenassessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.[2] Excluding all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage oftime are the only two factors that need to be taken into account whenassessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.[3] Some other factors or issues may have exerted an influence resultingin the allegation, but they won't, or can't, be mentioned.

By their fruits shall ye know them.

That response would imply [3], because of other factors/issues that thePC brigade won't mention.

What does PC mean in this context, other than "something I don't like"?There are obviously mechanisms whereby the fall in life expectancy comesabout, but they may well themselves be influenced by government policy.Obesity for instance.

Post by Roger HayterDon't forget that the Tories have, since 2011, managed to reverse the100 year secular trend of increasing life expectancy in this country.[1]So even if people do become Tory voters in their dotage there won't beso many of them around.[1]https://www.ft.com/content/78146114-15f5-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c

Just to be clear here, which of these are you claiming?[1] Including all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage oftime are the only two factors that need to be taken into account whenassessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.[2] Excluding all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage oftime are the only two factors that need to be taken into account whenassessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.[3] Some other factors or issues may have exerted an influence resultingin the allegation, but they won't, or can't, be mentioned.

By their fruits shall ye know them.

That response would imply [3], because of other factors/issues that thePC brigade won't mention.

What does PC mean in this context, other than "something I don't like"?

The same as it means in any current socio-political context.

Post by Roger HayterThere are obviously mechanisms whereby the fall in life expectancy comesabout, but they may well themselves be influenced by government policy.Obesity for instance.

One thing you might like to try is to estimate the fall in life span dueto several million new arrivals coming from countries with lowerlife-spans than the indigenous UK population, and continuing withunhealthy life-styles. But perhaps that's what you were getting at?

--Spike

"Once you see the RSGB logo you know that you are on the right track"But to what? Publish RSGBTech/RSGBTechnical's definitions of'genuine', 'interest', 'known', 'trouble', and 'maker', and the vettingpolicy.

Post by Roger HayterDon't forget that the Tories have, since 2011, managed to reverse the100 year secular trend of increasing life expectancy in this country.[1]So even if people do become Tory voters in their dotage there won't beso many of them around.[1]https://www.ft.com/content/78146114-15f5-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c

Just to be clear here, which of these are you claiming?[1] Including all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage oftime are the only two factors that need to be taken into account whenassessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.[2] Excluding all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage oftime are the only two factors that need to be taken into account whenassessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.[3] Some other factors or issues may have exerted an influence resultingin the allegation, but they won't, or can't, be mentioned.

By their fruits shall ye know them.

That response would imply [3], because of other factors/issues that thePC brigade won't mention.

What does PC mean in this context, other than "something I don't like"?

The same as it means in any current socio-political context.

Post by Roger HayterThere are obviously mechanisms whereby the fall in life expectancy comesabout, but they may well themselves be influenced by government policy.Obesity for instance.

One thing you might like to try is to estimate the fall in life span dueto several million new arrivals coming from countries with lowerlife-spans than the indigenous UK population, and continuing withunhealthy life-styles. But perhaps that's what you were getting at?

Post by Roger HayterDon't forget that the Tories have, since 2011, managed to reverse the100 year secular trend of increasing life expectancy in this country.[1]So even if people do become Tory voters in their dotage there won't beso many of them around.[1]https://www.ft.com/content/78146114-15f5-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c

Just to be clear here, which of these are you claiming?[1] Including all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage oftime are the only two factors that need to be taken into account whenassessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.[2] Excluding all other possible factors, the Tories and the passage oftime are the only two factors that need to be taken into account whenassessing the alleged reversal of increasing life expectancy.[3] Some other factors or issues may have exerted an influence resultingin the allegation, but they won't, or can't, be mentioned.

Post by Stephen Thomas ColeYou know things are bad for a Conservative government when even thehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/01/21/seen-enough-know-theresa-may-cant-change-must-go/I've also seen the Mail take an increasingly harder line on Mayrecently, it won't take many more of these kind of articles toembolden enough MPs to take her down and trigger a leadershipelection, which'll almost certainly precipitate a general electionand, most likely, a Corbyn government! At which point Labour canperfectly justifiably say that the Tories have made such a bollocksof negotiations that there is no choice but to revoke Article 50 andlook at the whole thing again, kicking the Brexit can down the roaduntil enough old racists are in the ground to guarantee a secondreferendum would have no chance of ending up Leave. Woo!